►
From YouTube: Court of Revision – April 11, 2013
Description
Court of Revision – April 11, 2013 – Audio Stream
Agenda and background materials can be found at http://www.ottawa.ca/agendas
B
We're
going
to
get
started
with
the
consent
agenda
because
we
have
two
items
today,
we'll
be
holding
the
first
item,
which
is
the
local
improvement.
Legged
drive,
but
I
believe
that
one
of
my
colleagues
is
going
to
be
moving
adjournment
of
the
local
improvement,
Ken
Park
sanitary
sewers
to
June
24th
court
of
revision.
Would
that
be
it
would
be?
C
B
Okay,
good
so
move
by
member
Moffitt
that
the
local
improvement,
Ken
Park
sanitary
sewers,
be
adjourned
to
the
June
24th
court
of
revision
carried.
So
all
of
you
that
signed
up
today,
thank
you
for
coming,
but
you'll
be
coming
back
on
the
24th
of
June
and
and
mr.
marks.
One
at
cop
comment
on
that
ten.
D
A
B
For
Leggett
Drive
we
have
a
couple
of
things
to
do
first
and
then
also
just
a
heads
up
mr.
mark
I
want
you
to
give
a
little
talk
about
what
was
approved
by
council
yesterday.
So
are
there
any
declarations
of
interest,
none
confirmation
of
minutes
for
the
December
13th,
the
January
9th
meetings
and
January
30th
Carrie?
Okay.
So
over
to
you,
mr.
B
D
Madam
chair
I
believe
it
was
you
at
the
January
30th
meeting
who
there
were
series
of
questions
about
what
the
court's
jurisdiction
was.
Issues
have
been
raised
about
the
length
of
time
it's
taken
the
city
to
bring
these
forward
and
which
are
not
within
the
court's
jurisdiction.
Staff
undertook
to
bring
this
to
committee
and
council
for
determination,
and
that
has
been
done.
D
The
people
associated
with
Leggett
may
not
know
about
this,
because,
while
notice
was
given
to
Kemp
and
Nichols
Island
with
the
of
the
item
before
council,
because
the
lake
had
notice
has
already
gone
out
of
wasn't
given
to
them,
and
I
should
note,
because
we
only
see
camp
and
meaghan
in
front
of
here
today
that
a
second
local
improvement
has
gone
fully
through
the
process.
Swans
way
was
the
first
they
went
through.
There
were
no
objections,
and
it
was
approved
in
nabarro
has
been
passed.
D
Nichols
Island,
which
was
the
construction
of
a
road
on
a
lion
within
Council
of
Moffitt
sward,
has
also
gone
through.
There
were
no
objections
and
a
bylaw
will
be
before
Council
at
its
meeting
of
April
24th,
but
to
come
back
to
the
program
that
was
before
committing
council.
Council
has
adopted
a
three
pronged
program
in
view
of
the
fact
that
of
the
time
that
it
took
for
these
matters
to
come
forward,
the
three
components
are:
there
must
have
been
a
change
in
ownership
since
the
construction
of
the
local
improvement.
D
Secondly,
a
tax
certificate
must
have
been
requested
and
issued
by
the
city
that
did
not
show
the
local
improvement
charges
is
pending.
And,
finally,
the
owners
much
swear
solemnly
affirm
and
affidavit
that
says
that
the
they
were
unaware
of
the
charges
and
I
would
add,
because
I've
had
a
number
of
questions
in
respect
of
that
affidavit
when
the
charges
get
finalized
and
the
bills.
D
B
B
Thank
you.
So
anyone
have
any
questions.
No,
we
do
have
some
speakers
on
on
Leggett,
Drive,
roadway
urbanization,
I
just
thought
that
we
should
look
at
where
we
are
today
because
we've
gone
at
this
now.
Was
this
our
fourth
time
and
it's
you
know
just
to
clarify
what
we're
looking
at
so
so
far,
the
on
January,
the
9th
the
court
of
revision
approved
a
reduction
of
the
local
improvement
charge
from
427
79
to
304
point
eighty
three
hundred
four
dollars
and
eighty
cents
per
meter,
and
that
was
in
accordance
to
the
document
one.
B
We
also
approved
a
reduction
of
six
and
a
half
six
point:
zero,
five
meters
for
property,
frontage
for
250
Hertzberg
and
300
Leggett
Drive
as
a
result
of
the
road
widening.
What
is
up
for
discussion
confirmation
today
and
comment
is
a
decision
further
to
the
adjournment
of
the
hearing
to
January
30th,
which
was
then
furthered
to
today
to
hear
submissions
and
to
give
consideration
to
frontage
reductions
of
properties
which
may
have
unusable
parts
because
pacifically
of
the
presence
of
the
kids'll
drain
and
to
finalize
the
local
improvement
special
assessment
role.
So
those
two
things.
B
D
B
D
E
E
We
also
conveyed
that
it
would
be
based
on
the
approximation
of
the
talk
to
them
bank,
which
we
derived
either
from
as
built
sand
or
air
photos
that
we
have
available
to
us
and
that
the
adjustment
would
reflect
a
15
meters
setback
from
the
approximation
of
the
top
of
Bank,
which
is
generally
consistent
with
the
2003
Official
Plan.
On
that
point,
I
just
want
to
give
a
bit
of
background
in
terms
of
how
we
decided
on
the
15
meters
from
top
of
Bank.
E
We
did
converse
with
our
planning
folks
I'm,
not
a
subject
matter,
expert
on
on
planning
issues,
but
it's
my
understanding
that
when
it
comes
to
building
restrictions
at
watercourses,
the
official
plan
has
four
or
five
criteria
in
the
absence
of
a
master,
drainage
or
sub
watershed
plan.
It's
my
understanding
from
the
information
that
we
got
from
our
Planning
Group
that
this
particular
area
did
in
fact
have
a
sub
watershed
plan
and
that
there
was
a
provision
in
there
that
a
setback
be
provided
from
the
centerline
of
the
drain.
E
That
is
a
bit
different
than
than
what
the
Opie
speaks
about.
It
typically
refers
to
15
metres
from
talk
bank,
so
we
erred
in
favor
of
the
larger
adjustments
by
measuring
from
the
top
of
bank.
This
sketch
is
a
bit
busy,
but
it's
just
there
to
depict
roughly
how
the
numbers
came
about.
This
is
at
the
what
I
refer
to
the
East
End
of
lega
Drive.
It
effects,
so
it
gets
down
by
the
Hertzberg
end
of
the
project
off
to
the
left
is
the
cross
section.
E
If
you
will
of
the
green
center
line
of
the
dream
again
referencing
in
a
lot
of
cases,
the
material
available
with
respect
to
setback
is
to
center
line
a
drain.
The
red
line
is
what
would
be
the
property
limits
in
as
far
as
the
assessment
information
was
concerned,
which
is
what's
used
to
derive
the
measurements
and
our
approximation
of
the
top
of
Bank
is
the
Green
Line,
which
again
was,
in
this
particular
case,
measured
based
on
reviewing
air
photos,
so
the
mathematics
gymnastics
that
we
go
through
is
simply
referencing.
E
The
green
lines
which
would
been
in
the
top
of
bank,
set
back
to
the
property
line
as
a
result
of
that,
the
adjustments
for
the
eight
properties
vary
between
just
over
thirteen
meters
to
over
32
meters
in
dimension.
Again,
that's
a
function
of
the
relationship
of
the
property
limit
used
in
the
assessment
role
versus
where
the
top
of
bank
setback
would
be.
In
sum
total
for
the
eight
properties.
It's
about
one
hundred,
eighty
two
and
a
half
meters,
approximately
fifty
six
thousand
dollar
reduction
overall,
that
is
the
substantive
difference
or
change.
B
G
Morning,
madam
chair,
thank
you
for
seeing
us
today.
We'd
also
like
to
thank
the
court
for
putting
forward
I'm,
not
sure
quite
how
it
happened,
but
the
proposal
for
own
owners,
landowners
who
bought
the
properties
since
that,
since
the
2001,
we
do
appreciate
that
that
that
does
make
a
big
difference.
I
sent
you
a
letter
yesterday
asking
the
court
to
make
a
decision
on
two
issues
I
presented
at
the
court.
G
F
You
very
much
madam
chair
just
coming
back
to
this
morning
as
I
agenda
and
I.
Think
chair
described
it
very
well
in
terms
of
only
dealing
with
the
Kissel
pond
issue,
because
the
quarter
region
has
made
the
decision
on
the
previous
issue
that
she
did
bring
up.
So
why
are
we
going
back
to
that
item?
I'm.
C
H
There
were
submissions
made
by
many
owners
at
the
meeting
of
January
9th,
including
submissions
made
by
mr.
Heyman
on
behalf
of
the
companies
he
represents
and
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
the
court
did
make
a
decision
with
respect
to
all
of
the
matters
that
had
heard
that
day
and
those
matters
which
did
result
in
reductions
were
specifically
referred
to.
But
the
intention
had
been
that
they
had
therefore
not
granted
the
reductions
which
had
otherwise
been
for
which
submissions
had
been
made.
Otherwise.
H
B
That's
right,
and
that
is
our
opinion,
unless
remember
Moffat,
says
something
different.
May
we
you
know
we
have
looked
at
this.
We
have
listened.
We
have
read
all
of
your
submissions
and
taken
the
all
the
advice
under
consideration
and
yes
thank
you
for
pointing
out
what
what
also
happened
was
the
go
forward
for
counsel
and
to
make
the
decision
that
they
did
yesterday
and
that
came
out
of
the
court
of
revision
as
well.
B
But,
having
heard
all
of
your
submission
and
others,
the
decision
that
we
made
are
worth
those
decisions
on
that
date
and,
as
I
said
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting,
we're
here
today
to
listen
further
to
arguments
regarding
the
work.
That's
been
done
on
consultation
with
the
owners
and
between
the
owners
in
the
city,
on
the
lands
specific
to
the
Kissel
drain,
and
also
to
finalize
that
local
improvement,
special
assessment
role.
G
G
C
The
original
the
original
petition
went
along
Leggett
to
Hertzberg,
went
right
to
Hertzberg
was
the
original
petition.
That
was
what
was
agreed
agreed
upon
by
15
of
the
21
landowners
back
in
2001
and
that's
what
that's.
What
was
approved
by
by
counsel
in
2001
was
the
entire
local
improvement
up
to
Hertzberg.
We
provided
relief
for
for
partial
for
FIR
part
of
the
corner,
On
January
9th.
There
were
six
meters
on
each
side,
which
was
was
in
response
to
what
you
had
submitted.
I
Welcome.
Thank
you,
madam
chair
councillors.
I
guess
the
first
note
I'd
like
to
make
this
morning.
I
guess
is
a
limitation
on
the
agenda.
Only
dealing
with
the
kids
will
drain
the
not
was
saying
that
we
had
a
presentation
at
in
January,
9th
January
30th
was
adjourned,
so
there's
no
opportunity
of
presentations
answer
or
further
submissions.
We
made
a
submission
on
genuine
right
dealing
with
the
issues
that
effect
came
out
of
research
Burke.
I
I
Dealing
with
the
issue
that
we
put
out
is
dealing
with
the
lateness
of
putting
this
special
assessment
Levy
owed
to
the
owners
twelve
years
after
the
fact
is,
quite
frankly,
in
my
opinion,
unconscionable
it's
not
good
business
practice,
that's
not
the
way
we
run
our
business
and
I've
submitted
a
letter
yesterday
to
councilor
harder
and
mr.
Jim
mark
asking
for.
Why
has
the
quarter
revision
not
addressed
why
this
is
taking
so
long
delay?
The
city
has
apologized
and
suggests
they
recognized
the
delay.
Where
is
accountability
as
to
why
this
is
delayed?
I
There
was
no
lesson
five
departments
involved
in
2001.
Certainly
somebody
along
the
way
should
have
realized
that,
in
a
good
business
sense
in
fairness
to
all
the
parties
get
this
thing
done
quickly,
so
it's
out
there
so
that
businesses,
especially
commercial
landlords,
can
have
this
flow
through
and
be
able
to
collect
this
from
our
tenants.
I
The
way
it's
currently
structured
and
I
made
this
in
my
presentation
on
January
tonight
is
this,
and
this
is
not
addressed
in
the
decision
of
the
court
of
record,
nor
through
recommendations
is
that
it
prevents
us
and
we
are
limited
in
our
recovery
against
tenants,
as
we
normally
would
be,
so
this
is
coming
directly
out
of
our
pocket
at
our
costs.
Had
this
been
done
in
a
timely
fashion,
ten
eleven
years
ago,
that
wouldn't
have
been
the
case
in
our
business.
I
If
we
do
a
an
error
of
this
nature,
somebody's
accountable
we'd
like
to
know
who
dropped
the
ball,
because
somebody
certainly
did
the
other
issues
are
raised.
In
my
letter
that
I
provided
to
counsel.
How
did
mr.
mark
is
that
the
recommendations
that
mr.
mark
is
put
in
his
letter
don't
cover
all
the
concerns
and
all
the
issues
quite
frankly,
and
that's
why
we
think
this
morning's
agendas
are
limited.
I
I've
made
the
point
in
our
letter.
Tickity
counsel,
is
it
cannot
a
research
park
over
the
past
ten
years
is,
has
provided
eighty
million
dollars
in
tax
revenue
to
the
city
of
Ottawa.
Certainly
there'd
be
some
issue
of
fairness
and
dealing
with
with
us
and
dealing
with
our
issues,
we're
not
asking
for
special
attention.
We
just
want
a
level
playing
field.
I
We
also
deal
with
the
issue
of
the
limitation
on
a3
criteria
that
it
was
approved
at
Council
yesterday
that
we
really
had
no
no
opportunity
to
have
any
input
into
that.
We
think
the
criteria
should
not
just
be
limited.
Those
three
things
dealing
with
the
purchase
of
property
as
I
indicated.
My
letter
is
that
tonight
a
research
park
is
a
conglomeration
of
many
corporations.
At
the
time.
I
Some
of
the
some
of
the
properties
out
there
might
tell
Research
Park
were
part
of
canal
a
research
park.
They
were
a
separate
entity
and
we
wouldn't
had
any
notice
that
they
they
had,
that
special
assessment
or
special
assessment
coming
so
why
it's
limited
just
a
purchase
is
is,
is,
is
a
gain,
a
question
that
needs
to
be
answered,
but
I
think
the
the
main
focus
of
our
presentation
today
is
first
off.
There
has
not
been
the
adequate
and
reasonable
opportunity
to
consult
on
this
matter
to
come
to
a
proper
resolution.
I
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
Ferris,
and
so
you
know,
I
did
share
the
letter
with
the
other
members
yesterday
when
I
received
it
and
as
far
as
the
court
of
revision
goes
and
the
three
of
us
sitting
here
in
this
position
that
we're
in
today
we
are
not
councillors
of
the
City
of
Ottawa
and
that's
a
you
know
whether
you're
on
our
side
of
your
site.
It's
a
it's
a
different
concept
for
sure.
B
So
as
far
as
answering
as
to
why
it
took
so
long,
that's
not
we're
not
in
the
position
to
answer
that
as
the
court
revision
and
I
would
say.
Also
that
that's
some
the
comments
that
you
made
on
the
interpretation
of
the
decision
yesterday,
I
think,
is
a
discussion
you
should
have
with
city
staff
I,
because
I'm
not
again,
I'm,
not
I,
have
to
say
I'm,
not
a
counselor
here
again,
but
if
I
was
a
counselor.
B
I
would
be
saying
that,
because
you
have
addressed
us
in
that
fashion,
I
would
be
saying
that
the
issue
that
you
raised
about
who
was
the
owner
and
when
that
you
took
the
ownership
and
all
that
sort
of
thing,
maybe
that's
something
that
staff
can
clear
up
for
you.
Okay,
I
would
suggest
you
have
that
conversation,
but
as
far
as
the
role
of
the
court
of
revision,
it's
not
our
responsibility
or
right
to
comment
on
that
particular
part.
As
far
as
the
approvals
that
we
made
on
January
the
9th
we
did
have
do
note
notification.
B
We
did
have
people
that
came
out
on
December
the
13th
we
did.
We
have
taken
our
time.
We
believe
that
we
have,
and
we
know
that
there
has
been
much
consultation
and
consequently,
because
of
that
consultation,
there
has
been
a
significant
reduction
in
the
assessment,
and
so
today
we're
here
to
to
deal
with
anybody
who
has
issues
with
regards
to
the
work
that
has
been
done
on
the
Kissel
drain
and
also
to
approve
the
local
improvement
special
assessment,
which
has
changed
from
our
first
meeting.
Does
anyone
else
have
anything
to
say?
C
On
the
on
the
delay,
while
I
understand
that
the
city
has
apologized
for
it,
it
is
unfortunate.
You
know
we
have
several
of
these
local
improvements
that
we
will.
We
will
look
at
that
have
been
lengthy
delays,
but
it's
not
the
role
of
the
of
the
court
revision
to
you
know.
I,
don't
want
to
make
light
of
the
situation
at
all,
but
I,
just
the
court
of
vision
doesn't
have
a
Pizza
Pizza
policy
on
on
local
improvement
charges.
C
I
I'd
like
to
make
a
further
comment
dealing
with
the
delay
and
how
it
impacts
business,
especially
kanata
research
park,
another
large
commercial
landlords,
our
tenant
base
is
largely
technology
and
knowledge-based
industries.
It
is
a
very
competitive
global
market
in
attracting
and
retaining
tenants,
and
we
are
inundated
almost
on
a
daily
basis
from
business
parks
in
the
United
States
and
worldwide,
trying
to
poach
and
are
our
clientele,
which
is
our
our
tenants,
because
it's
a
very
competitive
business
market
and
it
may
not
$500,000,
you
can
add
a
Research
Park.
I
You
may
not
seem
like
a
lot
of
money,
but
it
is
because
that
makes
a
difference
from
perhaps
50
cents
a
square
foot
to
attend
it
on
their
additional
rent.
They
are
being
offered
by
parks
in
upstate,
New
York
and
in
Tennessee,
in
Raleigh,
North,
Carolina
and
California,
and
in
Arizona
to
basically
have
much
more
competitive
rates
than
were
able
to
offer
because
of
the
the
municipal
tax
structure.
I
Who
knows
what
the
tipping
point
is
and
I'm
sure
other
other
employers
in
in
Canada
northen
can
speak
the
same
thing
they're
being
offered
on
our
honor
on
a
regular
basis.
Please
move
from
one
movie
down
and
I'd
say
so
we
look
after
the
cost
at
some
point
time.
Perhaps
you
get
people
are
gonna.
Look,
I'm
actually
weirder
worked
all
high-tech
coal.
Well,
it's
it's
death
by
a
thousand
cuts,
those
mice
emissions
and.
B
B
Economic
Development
Department.
Now
that
is
very
engaged
in
just
what
you're
talking
about
sattva
share.
You
probably
have
met
with
sad
I
would
suggest
that
kill
sir
wilkinson,
that
you
has
set
up
a
meeting
on
this
specific
topic,
which
is
the
poaching,
if
you
will
of
businesses
from
well
poaching
of
businesses
and
and
what
the
city's
interest
is
in
it
and
I.
B
B
J
J
J
That's
not
morally
correct
I
have
a
responsibility
to
the
kanata
north
business
part
to
support
those
businesses
in
these
concerns.
I
also
have
another
issue.
As
a
representative
and
a
board
member
of
the
BIA
I
have
to
respond
to
our
members.
I
have
to
be
able
to
say
you
know
when
they
ask.
How
is
your
feeling
on
this
process?
How
do
you
think
everybody
did
on
it
and
I
don't
have
answers
because
January
when
we
were
here,
I
understood
that
we're
going
to
be
three
issues?
J
Looked
at
I
understood
that
you
were
going
to
go
back
and
come
to
us
in
January,
30th
or
sooner
and
say
you
know
that
interest
rate
isn't
reasonable.
It
took
us
10
to
12
years
to
to
levy
the
tax,
so
we're
going
to
give
you
that
period
of
time
and
not
charge
you
interest
on
whatever
the
settlement
is.
I
thought
that
there
was
also
a
decision
that
you
were
going
to
look
at
that
corner
lot
and
the
presentation
that
Mark
made
so
to
find
out
that
somewhere
along
the
line,
emotion
was
quickly
passed.
J
J
Again,
maybe
somebody
from
the
court
or
even
Tim
to
ensure
that
Pat
himself
is
satisfied
on
the
outcome,
because
I
don't
get
that
sense
and
I
won't
be
able
to
pass
that
sense
along
to
anybody.
Until
you
know
they
are
satisfied
and
they
can
say
yeah.
We
had
a
really
good
feeling
about
what
happened
and
people
listened
to
me.
So.
Thank
you
very
much.
Well,.
B
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
coming
back
again.
Is
anyone
have
any
questions?
I
would
stay
there
for
a
minute,
because
I
want
mr.
mark
to
comment,
but
I
also
wanted
to
say
that
you
know.
Perhaps
we
need
to
have
our
our
legal
counsel.
Aren't
Court
of
revisions.
Legal
counsel,
Janet
Bradley,
speak
to
what
the
role
is
of
us
and
what
we
are
capable
of
doing
so.
I
think
that
that
is
something
you
know
even
ourselves.
For
example,
the
court
of
revision
is
is
a
new
thing
for
us.
B
It
is
certainly
something
that's
been
around
for
a
long
time.
There
has
been
changes
in
provincial
treatment
of
it.
Having
said
that,
though,
when
you
come
into
this
room
and
you've
come
here
on
any
other
day
for
any
other
meeting,
we're
in
a
different
role
and
much
of
what
I've
heard
to
discuss
today
is
about
that
other
role,
and
so
it's
why
we're
not?
If
you
feel
that
we're
not
listening
to
you
in
that
venue,
it's
because
in
the
role
of
the
court
of
revision
it
isn't
our
we
don't
have
the
ability.
B
D
Just
one
of
the
first
point,
madam
chair,
with
respect
to
the
interest
rate,
and
there
is
no
interest
that
has
accrued
on
this-
that
it's
being
billed
to
the
owners
from
June
2001
whenever
construction
started
on
the
project
until
the
time
the
charge
is
actually
approved
by
this
court
of
revision.
There's
no
interest
that
has
accrued
during
that
12
year
period,
but
and.
J
K
I'm
sure
that
is
actually
correct,
the
interest
rate,
yet
we
will
still
be
setting.
It
is
not
quite
finalized
because
the
the
report
didn't
actually
specify
it
said
what
are
our
borrowing
rate
would
be,
and
at
that
it
was
4.5%.
It
is
less
today,
so
we
will
be
once
this
is
we
have
the
numbers
finalized
and
we
go
out
we'll
be
setting
the
interest
rate
at
that
point
in
time
and
I
would
expect
it
to
be.
If
this
is
10
years,
this
will
be
under
4%.
J
Was
going
to
be
looked,
I
think
the
argument
that
that
or
maybe
the
statement
I'm
making
is
I
understood
from
the
January
meeting
that
that
it
would
be
considered
whether
there'd
be
an
interest,
any
interest
rate
charged
for
some
period
of
time
as
opposed
to,
and
so
it's
not
four
percent
I'm
challenging
and
I'm
not
challenging
anything
I'm.
Here.
It's
support,
you
know
so
it's,
but
so
it
looks
like
like
it
did
get
looked
at
and
it
has
been
decided
that
there
will
still
be
an
interest
rate,
but
that
information
didn't
come
back
to
anybody.
J
K
Chair
in
the
report
that
council
approved
back
in
2001,
it
indicated
there
would
be
interest
so
that
was
approved,
so
we
can't
deviate
from
that
unless
you
go
back
to
council.
What
we
have
done
in
the
finance
department,
though,
is
looking
at
this
under
the
act
view.
Really
it
says
you
pay
it
all
upfront
in
one
sum
or
you
paid
over
ten
years,
and
what
we
have
decided
is
to
be
more
flexible
with
respect
to
that.
K
So
if
people
want
to
pay
it
over
five
years
or
they
want
to
pay
it
over
two,
we
will
entertain
those
arrangements
with
them.
There
will
be,
though,
interest
charge
for
anything
that
isn't
done
as
one
payment
to
the
city
at
to
the
front
end.
Anything
that's
spread
over
time,
unfortunately,
because
of
the
fact
that
it
was
approved
way
back
in
2001
or
two
with
interest
on
it.
There
we
have
to
charge
interest,
because
the
city
is,
as
mr.
mark
pointed
out,
this
money
has
been
spent.
K
B
D
By
May
4
2001
2003
local
improvements
once
it's
approved,
it'll
be
certified
by
the
clerk,
and
this
would
be
21
day
appeal
period,
we'll
give
notice,
and
then
people
have
21
days
to
appeal
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Court
I'm,
going
to
assume
for
the
moment,
perhaps
naively,
that
there
aren't
any
appeals
and
then
the
letters
will
go
out
for
the
later
local
improvements.
There
is
actually
a
bylaw
that
is
passed
by
council
to
formalize
it.
But
it's
not
a
matter
of
discussion
or
deliberation
by
council.
D
H
Really
just
to
confirm
what
I
think
has
already
been
said
by
the
chair
is
that
the
role
of
the
court
of
revision
is
actually
quite
limited.
You
really
have
one
role
and
that
is
to
approve
the
special
assessment
that
has
come
about
as
a
result
of
the
local
improvement,
and
you
can
only
make
adjustments
to
that
as
a
result
of
provisions
that
are
in
the
Act
and
you
have
no
jurisdiction
beyond
that.
So
again,
your
jurisdiction
is
limited
to
approving
the
special
assessment,
and
that
is
it.
J
Madam
chair
I
think,
as
we
better
understand
the
process,
this
will
make
it
easier
for
us
in
the
future
and
hopefully
nothing
like
this
happens
again.
It
might
have
been
nicer
for
everybody
to
have
had
an
opportunity
to
to
have
a
discussion
about
their
individual
levies
with
some
and
prior
to
it
coming
to
the
court,
and
then
we
wouldn't
be
putting
there
wouldn't
be
this
anticipation
that
you
could
solve
all
these
problems
for
us
and
I
certainly
do
understand
the
role
and
I
understand
the
challenge.
J
J
There
is
an
expectation
of
reasonable
time,
though,
and
so
to
look
at
an
interest
in
that
agreement
and
try
to
apply
it
today
after
a
period
of
unreasonable
time
has
gone
by
I.
Think
you
know
somewhere
along
the
line.
Somebody
should
would
be
nice,
I,
say
I,
don't
think
anybody
should
I
can't
direct
that,
but
it
would
would
have
been
nice
and
would
still
be
nice
if,
if
that
could
be
looked
at,
do
we
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
counsel
on
this
once
once
this
goes
to
counsel
counsel,
no.
J
B
B
B
C
F
A
Thank
you
Mary.
What
I
want
to
talk
to
you
about
is
is
how
a
court
functions
as
opposed
to
how
a
council
committee
functions,
because
I
really
feel
that
the
way
of
making
decisions
is
more.
Like
the
council
committee
procedure.
If
I
go
to
court,
the
quota
court
and
there's
a
court
and
you
put
in
submissions
to
the
court
when
the
judge
makes
their
decision,
they
give
a
decision,
and
they
give
you
reasons
and
what
the
people
here
have
been
saying.
A
I
think
that's
the
decisions
that
you
make,
but
I
am
saying
that
if
you've
made
that
decision-
and
there
were
submissions
on
certain
things
that
are
not
being
met
because
of
your
decision-
you
have
to
say
with
regard
to
this.
This
is
the
reason
why
we
did
not
accept
it.
This
is
why
we
did
not
accept
it
and
third
20
years,
as
your
solicitor
have
said,
then
there
may
be
20
different
things
that
you
have
to
do
that,
but
I
think
that's
if
something.
A
This
Court
has
a
sat
for
a
long
long
time
and
I
think
this
probably
thinks
have
gotten
sort
of
mist
of
how
courts
operate.
Right.
I
see
it,
but
the
kind
of
motions
are
things
we
do
that
it.
That's
how
we
do
it
at
Council
and
people
can
comment
speak
to
it,
but
make
the
decision
we
verbally
will
tell
them
why
we're
making
the
decision
costly,
but
that's
all,
and
they
have
to
appeal
it
to
find
out
more
reasons,
but
usually
there's
a
big
report.
A
That
has
what
really
the
reasons
why
you're
making
that
decision,
but
really
don't
have
that
in
this
case.
So
that's
the
point
that
I
want
it
to
make
and
I
think
you
think
to
think
about
how
you
can
deal
with
that,
because
you're
going
to
have
a
whole
bunch
of
these
coming
forward.
There's
at
least
a
number
I
think
I
was
glad
to
hear
some
of
them
have
been
resolved
already,
but
this
is
the
longest
standing
one,
it's
probably
the
biggest
one
financially
and
it's
the
most
complex
one
I
do.
A
A
They
bring
in
a
lot
of
tax
revenue
to
the
city
and
they're
sort
of
feeling,
like
as
a
business
we've
been
doing
our
job
we've
been
paying
you
every
year
and
you've.
Let
this
one
slide
and
they
they're
really
quite
upset
about
that,
and
the
the
Business
Improvement
area
actually
sent
a
letter
to
the
mayor
on
this
on
behalf
of
the
businesses
that
were
impacted.
So
it's
not
something
that
is
just
one
or
two
people.
It's,
so
that's
really
a
I
said
how
to
how
are
you
going
to
deal
with
these
things.
H
The
court
of
revision
is
a
unusual
quasi
judicial
body.
It
gets
its
jurisdiction
from
provincial
legislation,
the
local
Improvement
Act,
and
there
there
is
no
requirement
specifically
in
the
local
Improvement
Act,
that
there
be
written
reasons
in
response
to
every
submission
that
is
made.
It's
it's
its.
It
functions
as
a
quasi-judicial
committee,
but
not
specifically,
with
the
formality
of
court.
H
Understand
that
what
the
court
has
been
doing
is
in
fact
making
its
decisions
on
the
basis
of
reasons,
and
so
the
issue
may
be
whether
or
not
those
reasons
should
be
in
writing,
but
clearly
I
think
one
would
understand
that
the
court
heard
all
of
the
submissions
and
in
not
accepting
the
submissions
that
were
made
by
certain
people,
such
as
mr.
Heyman
then
were
adopting
the
arguments
and
responses
that
had
been
made
by
the
city
in
its
written
and
oral
submissions
to
the
committee.
A
B
A
Did
I
just
respond
to
that
as
well?
I
mean
in
reason
you
said
they
don't
have
to
give
it
in
writing,
but
they
didn't
even
give
it
verbally
and
that's
why
there
are
little
confused
about
the
fact
of
what
you
actually
approved
and
I.
Remember
that
happening
at
the
very
end
of
moot
all
of
a
sudden
there's
a
motion.
They
passed
it
and
it
there
was
no
discussion
on
it
at
all,
so
the
presentations
are
made.
You
already
had
the
motion
there
to
move,
and
you
just
said
carry
so
the
people.
A
Don't
really
these
people
didn't
really
realize
you've
done
that,
which
is
an
indication
that
the
reasons
for
actually
making
that
decision,
we're
not
clear
to
them
and
I.
Think
it's
really
important
that
because
it
is
a
quasi-judicial
body.
That
reasons
are
clear:
whether
they're
done
verbally,
which
is
an
option
I,
prefer
to
see
at
least
the
basis
of
that
in
writing.
But
I'll
leave
that
with
you
is
your
decision
to
make,
but
I
think
it's
something
that
you
really
should
talk
about
yourself
and
decide
how
you've
been
handling.
Thank.
C
System
is
Bradley
if
we
remember
harder
and
I
were
speaking
about
this,
and
we
spoke
a
little
briefly
before
the
meeting
as
well.
If,
if
we
provide
written
response
with
with
our
rationale
to
mr.
Heyman
and
mr.
Ferris,
is
there
any
onus
on
us
to
provide
to
all
other
participants
or
just
can
we
provide
the
reasons
to
the
people
that
have
provided
submissions
here
today?
C
H
One
would
expect
that
if
you,
if
you
conducted
a
practice
where
you
were
going
to
give
written
submissions
to
any
one
person,
you
would
have
to
give
written
submissions
to
any
person
that
had
made
submissions
to
now.
There
may
be
ways
that
you
could
generalize.
If
you
have
five
or
six
people
making
submissions
on
the
same
matter,
then
clearly
you
could
generalize
but
again
really
in
response
to
councillor
Wilkinson.
There
is
no
obligation
per
se
to
debate
the
issue,
as
you
do
as
a
committee
of
counsel
in
the
legislation
in
the
courts
of
course.
H
Of
course,
courts
usually
and
often
don't
engage
in
discussion
amongst
themselves
and
do
that
often
outside
of
the
chambers.
So
again
we
are
dealing
with
legislation
that
isn't
very
specific
and,
and
these
decisions
will
have
to
be
made
by
the
committee
over
time
as
to
the
best
way
to
proceed.
I
wasn't.
A
Actually
asking
that
you
submit
into
each
one
individually,
but
within
the
minutes
of
your
meeting,
you
would
just
have
a
brief
explanation
of
what
the
reasons
were
that
would
cover
all
of
them
together.
So
it's
a
little
less
little
less
work
than
trying
to
look
at
each
individual
one
and
trying
to
figure
out
who
said
what
what
just
can
sometimes
be
rather
difficult,
I'm
specially,
because
you've
got
some
more
coming
up
too
and
I'm
sure
you're,
going
to
run
into
the
same
problem
with
others
and
I.
A
B
B
We
have
our
legal
advice,
we've
heard
from
our
treasurer
and
when
you
think
about,
if
I
think,
right
back
to
the
very
first
time
we
had
a
discussion
on
this
at
all
or
that
the
court
of
revision
first
sat
the
comments,
with
the
exception,
probably
of
mr.
Haman's
comments
have
been
pretty
consistent.
So
if
we
were
to
have
that
discussion
about
the
one
letter,
I
think
that
who
was
it
that
you
said
that
could
go
to
a
grouping
of
six
people
based
on
a
decision,
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
has
been
quite
prominent.
B
A
B
Example,
hang
on
a
second,
for
you
know,
has
failed
to
explain
their
reasons
for
delaying
the
imposition
of
this
levy
for
over
ten
years.
That's
not
something
up
for
debate
by
us
or
even
comment.
I
mean
I.
There
wouldn't
be
a
reason
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
What
we
can
comment
on
is,
after
hearing
the
submissions
reading
the
submissions
seeing
the
staff
report
getting
the
information
from
our
legal
expert
and
our
city
treasurer
etcetera
on
the
way
to
go
forward.
That's
what
we
base
our
decision
on.
It's.
A
That
I
can
think
of
particularly
that
are
specific
that
we,
you
could
take
a
decision
on.
One
is
that
corner
loss
in
one
corner
are
dealt
with
in
one
way
and
another
corner
have
dealt
with
in
another
way.
That
was
one
of
the
points
that
mr.
Heyman
raised
and
that
has
not
been
dealt
with.
The
other
one
he
had
raised
was,
if
you
had
heard
local
improvement
done
and
work
done,
and
the
city
comes
to
do
something
else,
and
charges
are
the
same
things
over
again.
That's
something
you
can
deal
with
the
other
ones.
B
I
believe,
unless
my
members
feel
differently
that
we
have
dealt
with
that
and
you
can
see
that
we've
dealt
with
it
in
in
ways
because
we
have
had
further
consultation
between
the
staff.
There
has
been
reductions,
there
has
been
reductions
in
frontages
or
has
been
reductions
in
cost
per
meter,
and
that
was
done
previous
to
today.
Today,
we're
talking
about
the
recommendations
on
the
Kessel
drain
and
to
finalize
the
local
improvement
special
assessment
role.
F
You
very
much
madam
chair,
and
just
coming
back
to
the
request
from
the
both
the
delegation
and
the
councillor
about
reasons.
I
mean
some
of
the
decisions
that
were
made
by
the
quarter.
Revision
were
based
on
those
reasons
in
terms
of
what
the
council
Harry
just
said
in
terms
of
reduction
and
vali
our
assessment.
Those
were
done
because
of
the
reasons
that
were
presented
at
the
last
meeting.
So,
if
you're
looking
for
reasons
why
the
course
of
revision
decisions
were
made
that
way,
those
are
some
of
the
reasons
why
we've
made
those
decisions.
I.
F
B
Having
said
that,
we
with
regard
to
the
corner
Lots-
and
you
were
talking
about
and
as
far
as
the
work
that
was
being
done
for
another
purpose
than
that
I
mean
we
had
took
that
into
consideration
when
we
made
our
decisions,
I'm
not
going
to
change
my
mind
on
that
I,
don't
think
either
of
you.
We
made
that
decision,
we're
sticking
with
it,
putting
it
down
on
paper
in
that
regard.
I
don't
have
a
problem
further
to
this
meeting
and
maybe
what
we
rather
than
set
a
precedent,
we're
always
going
to
do
that.
B
H
F
One
more
question:
miss
bradley's.
If
we
were
to
do
that
with
this
particular
issue
as
a
quarter
revision
going
forward,
are
we
setting
example
or
going
forward
or
as
chair
member
or
member
Moffitt
mentioned
that
in
terms
of
other
parties
that
are
involved
in
this
issue?
Are
we
setting
a
precedent
for
them
that
we
have
to
respond
to
their
give
them
the
same
reasoning
going
forward?
I?
Think.
H
H
But
certainly
with
respect
to
the
work
reasons
that
were
with
respect
to
the
submissions
which
were
made
with
mist
with
that
mr.
Heyman
made,
it
is
clear
that
you
did
consider
and
debate
the
issue
and
you
did
come
back
and
as
a
result
of
that
reasoning
and
discussion,
that
you
had
made
a
decision,
and
that
is
your
job.
B
B
F
Madam
chair
just
one
question
that
I
put
out
for
miss
Bradley.
So
far
this
morning
we
haven't
heard
nor
discussion
on
the
Kissel
pond
issue,
and
that
was
the
reason
for
this
meeting.
Is
there
any
other
process
that
we
need
to
do
to
address
that
kiss
to
issue?
Or
this
is
it
this
morning
you
microphone?
Please
you.
D
You,
if
I
may
have
a
clothing
submission,
so
what
the
city
is
asking
you
to
do
is
that
the
court
of
revision
receive
and
approve
the
local
improvement
special
assessment
roll
for
the
lakid
Drive
roadway
urbanization
process.
As
stated
in
attachment
6
to
the
memorandum
from
the
general
manager
dated
9
2
7
9
April
2013.
That
is
what
the
city
is
asking
you
to
approve
and
that
takes
into
account
the
comments
made
by
mr.
Martin
this
morning
with
respect
to
the
undeveloped
Abul
area.